The Couch

Virtue based ethics

Comments on Virtue based ethics

Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 2:44 PM:

libertygrl wrote:


and what is temporal reality, by your definition? some particular, concrete, physical thing?


i never said anything of the sort, nor did i think it.


and what is prescriptive, by your definition?


Dimensions are particular, physical things. I suppose one could argue over whether they are concrete or not, depending on how you define concrete.

Prescriptive philosophy deals with indicating the way in which one ought to act. You can say, giving money to those that work hard is just. Okay, well this is still just describing a behavior.

If there is no validation for why something ought to be done, it is generally descriptive. If you say, people ought to give money to those that work hard because it is just, then I ask why we ought to attempt to be just?

Because being just is good? Is that necessarily so, or is it your opinion that being just is good?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 2:47 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:

Yes, we can reduce all physical matter to energy.

Words do not do justice to describe a particular things actuality.


Words are the only means by which 'particular things' come into being.

Without words, without concepts, there is no such thing as a 'particular thing'. So the idea of 'particular things' is just an artifact of language, not a condition of 'reality'.


Zenoplata wrote:

A particular concrete thing is a state of energy, it exists but can be reduced. "Justice" is not a state of energy.


Certainly it is.

Insofar as we can observe a situation and remark 'that is just' then 'justice' is a 'state of energy' because it represents one pattern of energy existing at a given point in time--a series of relationships that are achieved between a number of 'particular things'.

We wouldn't have an 'idea' of 'justice' if we did not ever perceive events that are just and unjust. The observation of 'reality' comes first and then the concept that describes it. In either case, its all energy.


Zenoplata wrote:

As far as what we know at any given moment and what actually is, are two different matters.


No. You brought in the idea that only particulars exist and not universals. But we don't know that particulars exist other than just saying so.

One can't speak of 'reality' without referencing our ability to know reality. And we can't talk of what 'really is' while divorcing ourselves from the limitations of our subjectivity.

'Goodness' is just as viable a theory for the appearance of 'good things' as 'gravity' is a theory for things that attract.


Zenoplata wrote:

And no, I do not think society agrees that the concept of "just desserts" is as clear as the concept of "tree."


Maybe not always, but people don't agree on trees either, lol.

The point is that there is a target core within the chaos of human agreement that will come out as more concrete. And this applies to rocks as well as many abstract ideas. Since agreement, through language, is the only real distinction between the imaginary and the real, then many 'abstract' things are very very real.

8)
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 4:00 PM:

Words are not the means by which anything comes into being or does not. Things will exist as they are regardless of how we choose to define them.

Again, if you want to define universals by saying they are particular things, go for it. Energy is a particular thing, any amount of energy is particular, any action is particular. There is no universal quality from which it draws its existence, such as "redness" "justice" or "chairness."

This is a game of rhetoric, trying to pretend as if justice were a particular action in order to avoid the consequences of physicalism.

If we need to settle epistemological questions before discussion metaphysics, fine, suits me. It won't change much.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 6:06 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:

Words are not the means by which anything comes into being or does not. Things will exist as they are regardless of how we choose to define them.


Not really. You won't know them as 'things'. Is a 'thing' really existing as a 'thing' if you can't see it or recognize it?

What we describe as this 'thing' or that 'thing' is largely a product of our language and a function of our peculiar mode of cognition. It does not necessarily reflect reality. That is, it is not a mirror held up to reality that accurately and acutely portrays 'what's really there'.

Surely 'something is'. But aside from language and us arbitrarily choosing to draw conceptual lines around things we don't know what that thing is.


Zenoplata wrote:

Energy is a particular thing


haha...really.


Zenoplata wrote:

This is a game of rhetoric, trying to pretend as if justice were a particular action in order to avoid the consequences of physicalism.


That's all philosophy--rhetoric.

The fact is that just assuming physicalism is true isn't evidence that it is. Just announcing that 'only particulars exist' isn't grounds for accepting that this is really the case. We don't know that the world exists out there. We can only know what is presented to us in consciousness as phenomena. That's it and that's all. Everything else beyond that is speculative, including and especially all those 'things' you are referring to.

And once we start with the phenomena, the only ground we really have to stand on, then the question of universals becomes more realistic.

Either we create the universals and thence project them into the world in order to perceive 'things' where there are in fact no individual things (only one single mass of the phenomenal manifold), or the universals, the patterns, exist inherent in the structure of of cognitive faculties and we can't help but perceive the world as we do. We see 'red' because that's what we are--a being that sees red, no because 'red' is something that really exists as a 'thing'.

8)

Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 6:07 PM:

Say, what's this all to do with Virtue Ethics anyway...? raised eyebrow
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 6:24 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Say, what's this all to do with Virtue Ethics anyway...? raised eyebrow

see Z's post #3, explaining what virtue ethics is about
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/11/11 - 9:05 PM:

Yes, really. The universe will continue to be the universe regardless of how or if humans define it. I do not believe human observation fundamentally changed anything outside of our own or collective thoughts and actions.

Even in light of the double-slit experiment.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/12/11 - 8:45 PM:

Zenoplata wrote:

Yes, really. The universe will continue to be the universe regardless of how or if humans define it. I do not believe human observation fundamentally changed anything outside of our own or collective thoughts and actions.


As you say yourself above, its just a belief, just an assumption, not the truth, not reality, not the least since it is impossible to know. As long as you clarify that its all good. Then, as always, we are simply comparing beliefs about reality, not debating truths.

8)
Zenoplata
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 08, 2011

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 176
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 1:25 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:


As you say yourself above, its just a belief, just an assumption, not the truth, not reality, not the least since it is impossible to know. As long as you clarify that its all good. Then, as always, we are simply comparing beliefs about reality, not debating truths.

8)


Like my philosophy teacher told me the first day I stepped into Phil101. Words do not make the world.

All we have is beliefs, and our arguments do not necessitate anything.

I suppose that's the drawback of philosophy, it's really impossible to ever truly accomplish anything. The best you can hope for is to be slightly less wrong than the other guys. I suppose Socrates' world-view is still accurate.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/13/11 - 5:21 AM:

Zenoplata wrote:
Yes, really. The universe will continue to be the universe regardless of how or if humans define it. I do not believe human observation fundamentally changed anything outside of our own or collective thoughts and actions.

Even in light of the double-slit experiment.



Which universe? There is no objective universe out there. If you are talking about your universe...it may or may not exist independent of your definition----depending upon whether you let or not let it exist so. Other universes depend on subjects. My universe is essentially affected by my presence. In fact, if I am sleeping, my universe sleeps and so on.laughing
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/14/11 - 8:41 AM:

Zenoplata:

I bet you heard of Heisenberg. Uncertainty is a b***h. Even theoretically it is impossible to make an exact definition of anything, including yourself, let alone practically. An attempt to define yourself will inevitably lead you to conclude that you, too, are vague.

There are no certainties in this world. No rock-solid physical parts to rely on. At best, there are patterns. I'm a pattern, you're a pattern, science is a pattern, coffee break is a pattern, the US army is a pattern, my laptop is a pattern, my sandwich is a pattern, my sock is a pattern, heck, even the hole in my sock is a pattern. And none of these patterns can be delimited with precision. Some patterns are more elaborate, others are less visible, but that doesn't actually change much.

To make any division between patterns that are 'real' and others that are not is arbitrary and meaningless. Concepts become concrete, plans detailed, projects put into practice - it happens all the time. It's how the world works. To deny that things that are not physical have significant influence and value in the world is to deny reality.


Some things, particularily conscious living things, are physical and yet defined by a non-physical pattern. You can't break yourself down to your physical parts and say that those make 'you' real. Those physicals parts don't make a you. Only the pattern makes a you. That's because you're a pattern, and not, say, half a tonne of molten iron (which is also a pattern, but defined by none other than the laws of physics).


I know libs can fight her own battles, but I'm just curious really:
Still descriptive, my dear.


Did you put your little addendum there because she's a woman or just because you want to be patronizing out of general principles?
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.